Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trachy
I understand that as a voice of Thoughts you probaby want to distance yourself from Verizon criticism, but -- c'mon!
|
What on earth are you talking about? I'm not paid by Verizon or Samsung. Please don't imply that, either. :roll:
Quote:
|
Justifying this highway robbery with the argument that they've always been expensive is absurd.
|
Why? I bought the Qualcomm pdQ back when it was $799 years ago when released by Sprint. I'm not saying it's necessarily
smart, and I don't necessarily agree with their strategy, but it's been their business practice for years. They're obviously targeting the corporate market first.
Quote:
|
It might be a valid argument if the market set that $400 price tag, but AT&T and Motorola have clearly shown that not to be the case.
|
Well, note that $120 of that discount is Amazon's. That makes the price difference on the order of about $150. It's probably not worth that, but Verizon made an administrative decision to price this as a slower-moving item.
Quote:
|
Frankly, I'm a little surprised MS and/or Samsung haven't dropped the hammer on them yet.
|
Like I said, they've been selling the i700 at $599 for many months now. There's no rules about pricing, and I don't see any hammer. It's all within the "rules" of supply and demand. If an insufficient number of people buy it at that price point, they'll (hopefully) reduce the price. It's not like you're
forced to buy this product.
That would be highway robbery.
In general, if you look at Verizon Wireless,
everything is more expensive -- both the phones and the service -- and yet, they do well. That means that despite their pricing, their network is in demand. The younger GSM networks price more aggressively, largely because they need to as they're still in a ramp-up mode. Nov. 24th will tell us whose business policies are working and whose are not.
--janak